The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic An...

1. The difficult questions connected with this subject cannot be discussed here. Since Mommsen wrote his Römische Chronologie it has at least been possible to give an intelligible account of it, such as that in the Dict. of Antiquities (second edition), in Marquardt’s Staatsverwaltung, iii. 281 foll., and in Bouché-Leclercq, Pontifes, p. 230 foll. There is a useful summary in H. Peter’s edition of Ovid’s Fasti (p. 19). Mommsen’s views have been criticized by Huschke, Das Römische Jahr, and Hartmann, Der Röm. Kalender; the former a very unsafe guide, and the latter, unfortunately, an unfinished and posthumous work. The chief ancient authority is Censorinus, De die natali, a work written at the beginning of the third century A.D., on the basis of a treatise of Suetonius.

2. Chron. 48 foll.; Marq. 284 and notes.

3. Huschke, op. cit. 8 foll.; Hartmann, p. 13.

4. 1 Censorinus, De die natali, 20. 4.

5. Mommsen (Chron. 13) believes it to have been a Pythagorean doctrine which spread in Southern Italy. Hartmann, on the contrary, calls it an old Italian one adopted by Pythagoras. See a valuable note in Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. 561, inclining to the latter view.

6. Probably by the Decemvirs, B.C. 450, who are said to have made some alteration in the calendar (Macrob. 1. 13. 21.)

7. See Dict. Ant. i. 337 and 342. It is highly probable that there was a still older plan, which gave way to this at the time of the Decemvirate: the evidence for this, which is conjectural only, is stated by Mommsen in the first chapter of his Chronologie. The number of days in this cycle (also of 4 years) is computed at 1475, and the average in each year at 368-3/4.

8. Or, according to Mommsen, in alternate years after the 23rd and 24th, i. e. in the year of 378 days 23 days were inserted after the Terminalia; in the year of 377 days 22 days were inserted after the 24th (Regifugium). Thus February would in the one case have 23, and in the other 24 days; the remaining 5 and 4 being added to the intercalated period. The object of the Decemvirs (if it was they who made this change) in this curious arrangement was, in part at least, to keep the festival of the god Terminus on its original day (Mommsen, Chron. 38). Terminus would budge neither from his seat on the Capitol (Liv. 1. 55) nor from his place in the calendar.

9. Probably in order that the beginning of the year might coincide with a new moon; which actually happened on Jan. 1, 45, and was doubtless regarded as a good omen.

10. He added 10 days to the normal year of 355: January, Sextilis, December, receiving two; April, June, September, November, one only. These new days were placed at the end of the months, so that the days on which religious festivals fell might remain as before.

11. Mommsen, Chron. 220. In no other Italian calendar of which we have any knowledge is March the first month (ib. 218 foll.): but there cannot be much doubt that these too had undergone changes. Festus (150), representing Verrius Flaccus, says, ‘Martius mensis initium fuit anni et in Latio et post Romam conditam,’ &c.

12. Huschke, Röm. Jahr, 11 foll.

13. See below, under March 1.

14. Mommsen, Chron. 103 foll.

15. Not the real new moon, which is invisible. The period between the new moon and the first quarter varies.

16. Varro, L. L. 6. 27. This was the method before the publication of the calendar by Flavius: Macr. 1. 15. 9. The meaning of Covella is doubtful; it has generally been connected with cavus and κοῖλος, and explained of the ‘hollow’ crescent of the new moon. See Roscher, Lex. s. v. Iuno 586.

17. Aust, s. v. Iuppiter, in Roscher’s Lexicon, p. 655.

18. Varro, L. L. 6. 29 ‘Dies fasti, per quos praetoribus omnia verba (i. e. do, dico, addico) sine piaculo licet fari.’

19. Liv. 9. 46.

20. Macr. 1. 16. 14. Cp. the mutilated note of Verrius in Fasti Praenestini (Jan. 3).

21. Gell. 4. 9. 5. Varro, L. L. 6. 29. 30.

22. Livy, 6. 1. 11. Macrob. i. 16. 22.

23. Festus 165. See Mommsen’s restoration of the passage in C. I. L. 290 B.; another, less satisfactory, in Huschke, Röm. Jahr, 240.

24. Mommsen (C. I. L. 290, A) still holds to his view that NP is only an old form of N, brought into use for purposes of differentiation. His criticism of other views makes it difficult to put faith in them; but I cannot help thinking that the object of the mark was not only to distinguish the religious character of the days from those marked N, but to show that civil business might be transacted on them after the sacrificial rites were over, owing to the rapid increase of legal business. Ovid may be alluding to this, though confusing NP with EN, in Fasti i. 51, where the words, ‘Nam simul exta deo data sunt, licet omnia fari,’ do not suit with Verrius’ note on EN, but may really explain NP.

25. Fasti Praen., Jan. 10. Varro, L. L. 6. 31. Maer. 1. 16. 3.

26. For the names of the fragments of Fasti, see next section.

27. ‘Fastos circa forum in albo proposuit, ut quando lege agi posset sciretur,’ Liv. 9. 46. 5; Cic. Att. 6. 1. 8. On the latter passage Mommsen has based a reasonable conjecture that the Fasti had been already published in one of the last two of the Twelve Tables, and subsequently again withdrawn. (Chron. 31 and note.)

28. Macrob. 1. 12. 16.

29. C. I. L. 207 B. Petronius (Cena 30) suggests the way in which copies might be set up in private houses. In municipia copies might be made and given to the town by private persons (so probably were Maff. and Praen.) or put up by order of the decuriones.

30. Including the Fasti Maffeiani, which is almost complete.

31. No. 20 in C. I. L. (Guidizzolenses), found at Guidizzolo between Mantua and Verona.

32. Maffeiani, Tusculani, Pinciani, Venusini.

33. Those of Caere, Praeneste, Amiternum, and Antium.

34. Suet. de Grammaticis, 19.

35. Circ. A.D. 10: cf. C. I. L. 206. There are a few additional notes apparently by a later hand.

36. Menologium rusticum Colotianum, and Men. rusticum Vallense in C. I. L. 280, 281.

37. Merkel’s edition (1841), with its valuable Prolegomena, is indispensable; very useful too is that by H. Peter; Leipzig, 1889.

38. Tristia, ii. 549.